Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 1805

Citation
Section 1805
Parent Document
Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2012-02-16

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text

998 chars
Regardless of whether the current matter is examined directly under RCL section 1805(e)’s decrease in services provisions, or under RGB regulation 4200(f), the correct interpretation of law does not allow the rent decreases that RGB ordered as to SMP and tenants Rosskam and Salvatore because there was no evidence elicited at the hearing on the rent decrease petitions showing the tenants’ rent became excessive or there was any impact on SMP’s return. We do not read Sterling, supra, 168 Cal.App.3d 176 to support the proposition that any decrease in services necessarily justifies a rent decrease to be fixed in the discretion of a hearing examiner, without regard to evidence showing the rent became excessive because of the reduction in the service or that a landlord realized a higher return than before the reduction in service. Not requiring a “precise correlation” between the decrease in services and the decrease in rent does not mean that “no correlation” is appropriate under the RCL.9